Education, education, education. That's the issue on the blogs this week. Specifically, arts education. In a recent campaign speech, Barack Obama sung the praises of the arts, claiming that research shows "that children who learn music actually do better in math, children whose imaginations are sparked by the arts are more engaged in school."

Anne Hulbert responded in the New York Times, saying that this is nonsense: "There's just one problem with this ostensibly hardheaded defense of arts education. The studies invoked as proof that involvement in band -- or dance or sculpture -- spurs higher academic performance actually show nothing of the sort." Hulbert goes on to argue that the arts need to be valued in their own right, and not simply as a means to another end.

It is Hulbert's comments that have sparked blog debate. Philly Drama Queen takes Hulbert to task for contradicting herself: "Though her point - arts education ought to be appreciated in its own right, and not just for its potential to raise a school's results - is valid, she goes on to deride that very point by looking for its relative influence on other subjects ... Why isn't it possible to appreciate arts education as one option in a panoply of offerings for young minds?" In other words, what is wrong with educating children to become artists? Why is art so often justified only in terms of its wider social utility?

These questions will be familiar to anyone who has debated the issues of arts education or arts funding in the UK too. What is also familiar is the dismissive attitude of many who work outside the arts. On the Scholastic blog, Alexander Russo casually dismisses the issue by saying, somewhat condescendingly: "Sure, art is cool, and maybe there's not enough of it in schools these days. Yeah, some kids really groove on arts education and that helps them get through the system. But, apparently, there is no killer research out there showing that arts helps kids read and do math."

Russo's attitude angered the arts teacher who blogs at Prea Prez. In supporting Obama's initial comments, he argues: "Rather than Russo's 'sure, art is cool' condescension, Obama provides a broader perspective of what knowledge is worth experiencing, knowing and teaching." These comments are echoed by Mark Cooper on the Beacon Broadsides blog: "In my experience, arts education provides a format for students to think critically, ask questions, and ultimately, find their own answers."

All of these arguments rest on an idea of the arts as having some greater value beyond themselves. The difference is whether you see that value as expanding the mind of the individual - as surely all good art in general should do - or whether they are simply seen as being instrumental in helping with more "serious" subjects and issues. This latter attitude is familiar to all those in the UK who have had to deal, in the past, with the Arts Council's obsession with things like diversity and social inclusion.

In a recent blog, Drama Queen's prognosis for the future is grim. She points out that arts education is rarely assessed at a national level in the US, and that this year, they did not even bother to assess the level of theatre education at all. And this lack of interest leads to neglect. After all, she asks: "why bother teaching something if no one's testing it?"

Perhaps this lack of interest in theatre in US education is one reason for Brits dominating Broadway at the moment. Responding to Mark Shenton, the director Paul Miller agrees that "there appears to be a directing vacuum which Brits have been filling in New York. And while Domenic Cavendish points out that the response to our recent export Boeing-Boeing has been decidedly mixed, that hasn't stopped the show being one of a number of UK productions to garner multiple nominations at this year's Tony awards.